Even though we basically play games for a living, all of us here at Slide To Play take journalistic ethics very seriously.

I learned my games journalism chops at GameSpot during the Greg Kasavin/Jeff Gerstmann era, when the site was extremely rigorous about separating business from editorial — some would say Puritanical. Some Internet rumors allege that this is what got Gerstmann fired, telling it like it was after business had seized power from editorial.

STP managing editor Kelvin Ma and I did a summer internship in college at Boston Magazine, where our editor’s favorite phrase was “No free favors!” Actually, he said something considerably more vulgar than that, but we got the message: Our final responsibility is to our readers, not to our sources or the subjects of our stories. Accuracy, objectivity and balance are paramount. Having the people you’re writing about like you personally is a nice bonus, but it better not interfere with your story.

This profession isn’t accorded much respect, and we don’t make much money to speak of, but journalists are among the most powerful people in the world. Journalism reaches people in ways that self-interested politicians and businesses can’t. Our only interest should be to uncover and report the truth. We earn our credibility through painstaking research and honest reporting, and that establishes a unique bond of trust between us and our readers. Reporting the facts can move crowds.

It drives a lot of traffic on the App Store, too, which is why I’ve taken a stand on journalistic ethics in the App reviewer’s profession. Many others have joined in this endeavor to build OATS, the Organization for App Testing Standards, which is now 10 sites strong and growing. The principle at the center of OATS is the absolute separation of business from editorial, with no exceptions.

It does not follow that all non-OATS sites are automatically unethical, of course. Many already share our core values, without knowing or caring what OATS is. Our aim is merely to raise awareness of the issues by holding ourselves to a higher standard. We obviously can’t force any other site to toe our particular line.

All we can do is invite them to join us. And that is what I’m going to do right now for AppCraver.

AppCraver’s sale of “expedited reviews” at $50 a pop to developers has been an open secret around the community for some time. And now that TechRadar has published an article about it, AppCraver’s controversial policy, which is noted at the bottom of the site’s FAQ, is receiving some mainstream attention.

AppCraver was the unnamed competitor site in my first ethics column several months ago. At that time, my feelings were absolutely clear — I was pissed off.

This time, AppCraver editor-in-chief Barbara Holbrook explained to me in an e-mail that they are aware running expedited reviews poses a risk to the site’s credibility, but made assurances that the business aspect of selling an expedited review is kept separate from the editorial process.

“We don’t even disclose to our writers which apps are Expedited and which aren’t,” Holbrook writes. “Our writers are presented all assignments with the same criteria and same deadlines. The only part of the process that is expedited is how quickly the app is assigned, from that point on it’s treated like any other review.”

Holbrook says that editorial retains the right to turn down expedited reviews because some “apps don’t meet our standards to merit a review,” but she still recognizes that there is a major promotional aspect to a game review, no matter what the review actually says. “Most people realize that even a lower-scoring review can generate sales,” she writes. “This is because even with guidelines, scoring is inherently subjective. A clock app recently scored a 6/10 but received the highest number of click-throughs to the App Store for the day it published.”

“AppCraver tries to review apps that people will like,” Holbrook writes. “We try to avoid reviewing apps that we think will score poorly because it is a waste of time and resources.”

Fine. Although I personally don’t agree with this viewpoint, many argue that the App Store is so vast that it is more useful to celebrate the highlights than warn about the pitfalls. But that is precisely why sites should not sell guaranteed coverage.

Suppose AppCraver grants an expedited review to a middling app, while superior apps in the same category languish for weeks or go unreviewed entirely. By allocating resources according to commerce over objectivity, it fails its readership by not pointing out the best and the brightest.

Boosting a game to the front of the line for a fee? Come on. That’s not journalism, that’s advertorial.

It stands to reason that the demand for advertorial would be immense in this business, given the volume problem on the App Store. STP gets tons of requests for coverage every single day from all over the world. Why wouldn’t developers pay for it? It seems like the perfect racket, one that put our site and many others at a disadvantage.

“Given all the crazy crap that is flooding the market right now, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for AppCraver to request a fee to triage the review requests that come their way,” Appy Entertainment brand director Paul O’Connor wrote to me in an e-mail. “I’d pay a nominal fee — $5 or so — to get into the review queue ahead of the mob of fart apps, etc. that are likely pounding on AppCraver’s door.

“But I don’t think developer fees should be a profit center for a website. Fifty bucks is not a triage fee — it is an advertising fee — and if I’m going to pay that much I should be treated as a sponsor.”

Holbrook claims that expedited reviews are “a small part of our business model,” accounting for only 11 to 14 percent of the site’s reviews. AppCraver depicts it as more of a service to the App community than anything else. “Not all developers can afford to advertise,” writes Holbrook. “The Expedited Review program levels the playing field because even independent developers with tiny budgets can afford to guarantee that their app gets a shot at a review.”

But is AppCraver a site for developers, or a site for consumers? Some developers understand how consumer media is supposed to work.

“The relationship between the games media and game publishers has always been delicate, and charging money from the people whose creations you’re objectively reviewing should at least be done with a very carefully worded proposition,” says Finnish developer Secret Exit’s Jani Kahrama. “While the reality is that publishers need to advertise on the same websites that review their games, it would be best if the websites kept their business limited to selling advertising spots, not review spots.”

What is the moral of the story here? It’s not that AppCraver is evil, and run by bad people. On the contrary. I like AppCraver, and in fact, I was once very excited by the possibility of working with the site.

But AppCraver has started down a slippery slope, editorial firewalls or not. For one thing, it’s generating lots of bad press. According to the TechRadar piece, some developers are even calling for a boycott of the site. For another, once a publication compromises its journalistic integrity in any way, no matter how minor, it opens the door to increasingly large transgressions. In the final analysis, I think it’s the wrong way to build the business.

I’m not the only one, either. “While I take AppCraver at their word that they are not selling good reviews, they are losing integrity in the eyes of their readers by blurring the lines of editorial and advertising,” says Jeff Scott, the owner of fellow OATS site 148apps.com.

He’s right. Controversies like this may not impact a publication’s bottom line immediately, but they can cause subtle, irreversible damage to its name over time. Their actions also reflect negatively on the industry as a whole, because when one reader has to question the integrity of one of us, he has to question all of us.

AppCraver, let us help you kick the expedited reviews habit. Renounce the practice and join us in OATS. Nobody would be happier than me.

Connect with us

Latest Recommended Games

The fine folks at Milkbag games have released Sidewords. A fun little diversion of a word game that is the devil child of crosswords and scrabble. For each level in the game the grid must be completed to win the level — this means that each letter at the top and side must be used. And not just the top or side, but each word must be made up of letters from the top and side to create a grid. It’s a pain, but in the right kind of way. Even the simplest of the levels can be a head scratcher until you get used to the game. Well worth the $3 as a diversion while we wait for Milkbag to finally release Snow Siege.

We’d like to thank our sponsor for this week, Zap Zap Kindergarten Math.

It’s not always easy to tear your kids away from their tablets and make them do something edifying. Thankfully, Zap Zap Kindergarten Math relieves you of this task by turning mathematics into a fun touchscreen video game. Win win!

Aimed at children 3-6 years old, the app makes math fun by ‘gamifying’ it, turning simple mathematics problems into little challenges so that your pre-schooler can learn and play at the same time.

There are more than two dozen mini-games, split across three categories: Numbers, Shapes and Measurements, and Add and Subtract. According to the developer the difficulty of these puzzles is adaptive too, so kids of any ability can be both encouraged and challenged.

Mini Dayz has launched and it’s a pixelated 2.5D open world that’s as brutal as the desktop version. In this game, the player is dumped on shore with nothing. They must scavenge around for food, water, and weapons while avoiding attack. It’s the kind of game where the goal is to stay alive as long as possible. But that will never be very long. It’s oddly free and seems to only have an ad on the main screen — for now.

Pewter Games has brought their charming point and click adventure The Little Acre to iOS. It’s an amazingly beautiful animated adventure set in a sort of hybrid magical / alien world. A great all ages adventure and very fun.

We’d like to thank our sponsor for this week, The House of Da Vinci by Blue Brain Games. There’s a reason Leonardo Da Vinci is the only renaissance figure who routinely shows up in video games you know. With his remarkable inventiveness and genius for creative problem-solving, Da Vinci was a gamer through and through. He was just born 500 hundred years too soon. Thankfully, there are studios like Blue Brain Games to bring him to life in videogame form. The House of Da Vinci, which comes to us courtesy of a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign, is a puzzler that seeks to channel the artistry and innovation of its title character.

You play as one of Da Vinci’s more promising apprentices, and you have the challenging task of trying to work out where the hell he’s gone. Was he assassinated by the church? Who knows. Has he quietly gone into a retirement? Perhaps. Did he accidentally invent a shrink ray and shrink himself down to the size of an dustmite? Probably not. Da Vinci’s workshop looks beautiful, thanks to some impressive 3D graphics, and the in-game environment is crammed with all the elaborate machines and crazy inventions you’d expect to find in the workplace of a renaissance genius.(more…)

Poly Bridge is out now on iOS, and it’s good to have it! It’s a great game and many seem to agree that it’s the best bridge builder game available. But the iOS versions, so far, is missing the sandbox mode. I would hope that it’s coming soon in an update. If you are all interested in physics puzzlers, grab this one. (Note: the video is for the PC version, I have yet to see a trailer for the mobile version, the developer Dry Cactus isn’t that great at marketing…)

Advertisement

Apple, the Apple logo, Apple Watch, iPad, iPhone, and Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. Other terms may be trademarks of their respective companies.